Obama’s DOJ Cracks Down on Medical Marijuana: California vs. The Feds

This Reason Magazine video covers the criminal actions of the Obama Administration’s DEA.  The DEA, under the Obama regime, has raided and pillaged legal California medical marijuana dispensaries across the state.  This is in direct contradiction to Obama’s campaign pledges to leave legal dispensaries alone.

The story covers the plight of one such dispensary owner who has been bankrupted, and now faces the threat of criminal prosecution, for providing sick people with medical marijuana.

The same DEA that is raiding legal pot dispensaries, which are operated by law abiding peaceful businessmen, is helping the Mexican cartels launder millions in illicit profits.

The Village Voice reports:

​Investigators with the Drug Enforcement Agency helped a Mexican narcotics kingpin transfer million of dollars in illegal cash profits, the New York Times reports today.

The DEA program recalls a similar, much smaller scale operation first reported in the Voice last month in our article about government informant Angel Perez. The Voice article disclosed that Perez convinced U.S. Immigration and customs agents to move $500,000 in cash from the Dominican Republic to Miami and Puerto Rico. But, somehow, the smuggling operation didn’t result in any arrests or even the identification of the source of the money.

The DEA and local law enforcement are all dirty.  They have no intention of “protecting American’s from the evil dangers of pot.”  Their sole intent is to ensure the dirty money from the violent Mexican cartels keeps flowing into their pockets.  If pot were to be legalized, law enforcement profits from asset seizures, bribes, and money laundering operations would vaporize.

In other news, a 20 year medical study has just been released that proves marijuana does not cause lung damage.

The NYT reports:

Dr. Donald Tashkin, a pulmonologist at the University of California, Los Angeles, who has studied marijuana for over 30 years and was not involved in the study, said it confirmed findings from several other studies showing “that essentially there is no significant relationship between marijuana exposure and impairment in lung function.” He said one reason marijuana smoke may not be as harmful as tobacco smoke, despite containing similar noxious ingredients, may be the fact that its active ingredient, THC, has anti-inflammatory effects.

“We don’t know for sure,” he said, “but a very reasonable possibility is that THC may actually interfere with the development of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.”

Dr. Tashkin said he and his colleagues had found in their own research — unexpectedly — that even smoking up to three joints a day did not appear to cause a decrease in lung function.

Of course, we must keep pot illegal “for the sake of the children!”  Sweet karmic justice will eventually be dealt to the corrupt officers engaged in this illegal war.  Most of them have kids, and those kids will all grow up one day to be teenagers themselves.  Given that 30% of young adults in this country have been arrested at one point (mostly for drugs), it stands to reason that their own children have a pretty good chance of being arrested themselves for breaking the laws which supposedly “protect” them from pot.  We will then see just how smug those officers are when it’s their own son or daughter sitting in a jail cell for smoking a joint.

 

  • Pingback: Obama’s DOJ Cracks Down on Medical Marijuana: California vs. The Feds | TaJnB | TheAverageJoeNewsBlogg()

  • Pingback: Obama’s DOJ Cracks Down on Medical Marijuana: California vs. The Feds – WNYTruthers.org()

  • Pingback: Obama’s DOJ Cracks Down on Medical Marijuana: California vs. The Feds()

  • Pingback: Obama's DOJ Cracks Down on Medical Marijuana: California vs … | Roots 2 Resin()

  • http://twitter.com/inscamerated Gary Fowler

    Ah, the ol’ “Necessary and Proper” clause out of the Constitution, Article I Section 8. The Feds have been abusing the hell out of that the past hundred plus years, coupled with the Commerce Clause. Regardless, medical marijuana is now State law in many states now. Personally I think State cops and county sheriffs ought to be standing by to arrest the Feds over this nonsense.

    • Andie1lan

      Agree. 

  • Cogitor

    What jurisdiction does the Federal government have within the bounds of any state?
    Answer: None! The Federal Government only has jurisdiction on Federal enclaves in a state. To be a federal enclave, the land must be ceded to the US government, by the state legislature. In my states’ revised codes, those ceded lands are listed.

    Here is a link to an article that the Federal government produced. It shows just where they have jurisdiction. It’s long, and detailed. Why are the lawyers for the states using it to throw the Federal government out of their state? Could it be that they are making too much money playing the legal battle game?

    http://constitution.org/juris/fjur/fed_jur.htm

    There is a reason that the Federal Government can come after citizens in the states.
    You are a Citizen of the United States. The US Supreme court ruled that the US government has jurisdiction over you, no matter where in the world you are.

    “A citizen of the
    United States residing
    in a foreign country continues to owe allegiance to the United States
    and is bound
    by its laws made applicable to his situation.” US Supreme Court
    case, BLACKMER •v. UNITED STATES 284″ US: 421, 436-39

    The 50 states are foreign countries with regard to the United States. The United States includes only Washington DC, and the 6 possessions, like Guam and the Virgin Islands.

    And here is a link to an article that will explain how the United States gained sovereignty, that it shouldn’t have, over every last US Citizen.

    http://originalintent.org/edu/citizenship.php

  • Joe Tittiger

    They are criminals violating their own 10th amendment. Would a California jury convict someone shooting these thugs in self defense?

    Where are the country sherries? Urinating in their diapers or helping their federal masters that hand out the goodies?

  • http://twitter.com/inscamerated Gary Fowler

    I understand concerns about the federal government not having jurisdiction within any State of the Union, except where it owns or leases the land. I agree, wholeheartedly. However, that report was written nearly 60 years ago.

    After the Articles of Confederation had failed, James Madison was credited with drafting the Constitution. He was a federalist, a big believer in central government power, just as most of our presidents have been. The Articles were a joke, culminating in Shays’ Rebellion.

    Afterward, the intention was to give Congress some teeth, and yet limit what it could do at the same time. Jefferson was an anti-federalist, but even with his own tweaking of the Constitution, the federal government was still left with an enormous amount of power right from the beginning with the Constitution’s ratification. The Bill of Rights was ratified in the First Congress.

    Via the Tenth Amendment, and the three branches of government, this power was to be shared and diffused between federal and States. The Feds, for example, do not have any police power, no matter how they try to get around “necessary and proper.” Police power is reserved solely to the States, and to ourselves if need be, e.g. citizen’s arrest.

    Jefferson knew very well what Congress would do with the Commerce
    clause, coupled with the “Necessary and Proper” clause. It prompted him to say that we would need a revolution every 20 years just to keep government honest. I’d say we’re long overdue. This whole mess
    got started with Marbury v Madison, and Justice Marshall’s Supreme Court’s interpretation of “necessary and proper.”

    As a result, the Feds today are like a bunch of spoiled five year old children with an unlimited credit card, and they don’t want to share anything. They don’t give a sh*t about the Constitution anymore, and they’ll trample it and jurisdiction to get what they want. It’s past time the States regrew their backbones and kick them out of where they don’t belong.

  • http://twitter.com/inscamerated Gary Fowler

    I understand concerns about the federal government not having
    jurisdiction within any State of the Union, except where it owns or
    leases the land. I agree, wholeheartedly. However, that report was
    written nearly 60 years ago.

    After the Articles of Confederation had failed, James Madison was
    credited with drafting the Constitution. He was a federalist, a big
    believer in central government power, just as most of our presidents
    have been. The Articles were a joke, culminating in Shays’ Rebellion.

    Afterward, the intention was to give Congress some teeth, and yet limit
    what it could do at the same time. Jefferson was an anti-federalist, but
    even with his own tweaking of the Constitution, the federal government
    was still left with an enormous amount of power right from the beginning
    with the Constitution’s ratification. The Bill of Rights was ratified
    in the First Congress.

    Via the Tenth Amendment, and the three branches of government, this
    power was to be shared and diffused between federal and States. The
    Feds, for example, do not have any police power, no matter how they try
    to get around “necessary and proper.” Police power is reserved solely to
    the States, and to ourselves if need be, e.g. citizen’s arrest.

    Jefferson knew very well what Congress would do with the Commerce
    clause, coupled with the “Necessary and Proper” clause. It prompted him
    to say that we would need a revolution every 20 years just to keep
    government honest. I’d say we’re long overdue. This whole mess
    got started with Marbury v Madison, and Justice Marshall’s Supreme
    Court’s interpretation of “necessary and proper.”

    As a result, the Feds today are like a bunch of spoiled five year old
    children with an unlimited credit card, and they don’t want to share
    anything. They don’t give a sh*t about the Constitution anymore, and
    they’ll trample it and jurisdiction to get what they want. It’s past
    time the States regrew their backbones and kick them out of where they
    don’t belong.

  • Anonymous

    What? Barry-too-many-names lied? How very presidential of him. Don’t ever turn your back on him.

  • Mare650

    We have a government that is operating as a crime syndicate.

  • Pingback: Saturday 14.01.12 – Unfiltered News compiled by G. Edward Griffin | The Inner Circle Group()

  • http://www.cafepeyote.com/ RBWorks

    The federal regulations only apply to corporations, government or governmental subdivision or agency, business trust, partnership, association, or other legal entity, not to natural born human beings.  Where they have fooled us, until now, is that they insert the word “person” and/or “individual” in the text of their regulations and we all believes it means us.  But some codes, such as the DEA’s (21 CFR 1300 et sec), finish the definitions of these words with descriptions like “or other legal entity,” which is inclusive and thus, the terms “person” and “individual” as used therein, mean other types of permit holding entities (licensed, registered, or otherwise permitted).
     
    See Title 21 Code of Federal Regulations (Drug Enforcement Administration), section 1300.01(34):
     
    “The term person includes any individual, corporation, government or governmental subdivision or agency, business trust, partnership, association, or other legal entity.”
     
    See Title 21 United States Code (Food and Drug), section 802, where they don’t even define the word “person.”
     
    Thus the distinction is between a legal entity called “person” or “individual” and a natural born free human being, you and me.
     
    Nowhere in the drug codes do they define what an “individual” means.  But see “individual practitioner” as used in 21 CRF 1300.01(17):
     
    “The term individual practitioner means a physician, dentist, veterinarian, or other individual licensed, registered, or otherwise permitted, by the United States or the jurisdiction in which he/she practices, to dispense a controlled substance in the course of professional practice.”
     
    See Black’s Law Dictionary, “individual”; also “or” as used in “or other legal entity.” See also below, pre-1990 definition of “individual purchaser.”
     
    Now let’s look at it from the perspective of how they come against you in a federal (sic) court. They take you to a federal district court and charge you with possession, use or selling (and conspiracy thereof) a controlled substance, under some section of Title 21 of the United States Court, such as 841. So, supposedly which agency arrested you? The DEA? Well, they are regulated and have rules to comply with, found in Title 21 Code of Federal Regulations, Sections 1300-1399. 
     
    As an administrative agency, the DEA has to comply with Title 5 of the United States Code (Government Organization and Employees), sections 554, 555, 558, 559. As such, before they can arrested you they have to determine: (1) if they have the authority to regulate you, (2) if so, provided you a hearing at the administrative level, (3) if they did not want you to do something (smoke, plant pot, etc.), tell you to cease and desist, (4) request a court to issue an injunction or restraining order to make you cease and desist, (5) bring civil charges against you, (6) and only then if all else fails can they take you to federal court.
     
    The thing is, they would have lost at point (1), as they have no jurisdiction over a natural born human being. They can only regulate permittees, that is, corporations, practitioners and others who received a permit from them to operate, as noted in the above regulations.
     
    You see, users (that is, not being a legal entity as defined above) have no nexus with the government. We have no grant from or affiliation to the state. Where many get confused is when they consider the U.S. Constitution as being where they get their rights. They contemplate the ten original amendments as their defense.
     
    But the U.S. Constitution is only a trust, a charter, between the states and their representatives (land owners and their estates), in which they contracted with one another (excluding us) to protect their property. The amendments were a reminder to them of what they cannot do to us, being that we allow them to exist.
     
    So often people claim their constitutional rights for many defenses in legal matters, when they should be really claiming their common law rights, that’s really where  life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness come from, and were we can find them.
     
    The federal (sic) government cannot regulate us as natural human beings, because we have no Nexus with the corporate entity known as The United States of America (Inc.).
     
    If you want to know if the term “person” “or “individual” as used in the regulations apply to human beings, contact the agency.
     
    In the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 21 (or any other Title), around page vi, it reads:
     
    “For a legal interpretation or explanation of any regulation in this volume, contact the issuing agency. The issuing agency’s name appears at the top of odd-numbered pages.”
     
    In Title 21, the agency is “The Drug Enforcement Administration”.  Here is their address:
     
    Drug Enforcement Administration
    Mailstop: AXS
    2401 Jefferson Davis Highway
    Alexandria, VA 22301
    (may have changed now)
     
    In the late 80’s (1988, 1989) I contacted California Senator Alan Cranston by mail and presented him with my full study on the matter and asked him to inquire with the agency my claims. He replied (or his staff with his signature) and said he would immediately inquire with the DEA.
     
    About a month later I received a letter from the Senator advising me that there was nothing he could do in my quest to find the truth, and wished me luck. The envelope contained his letter of inquiry to the agency and the DEA’s response. The DEA stated that they were not going to answer the question.  And this was a prominent senator asking for clarification.
     
    Prior to my inquiry through Senator Cranston, 21 CFR 1310.01(b) defined an “individual purchaser”  as “a HUMAN BEING not acting as an agent or official of a business entity…”  I noted this in my letter to Cranston. That definition was removed by the 1990 edition, that is within about a year of my inquiry.  But that does not change anything; it simply obscures the truth. See the above section in any 21 CFR code publication prior to 1989, modified in 1990.
     
    I invite you to study the regulations and simply contact the DEA, by mail, asking the question, telling them you are a natural born free human being, not a legal entity,  nor a “practitioner”  as defined in their regulations and if the term “person” and/or “individual” as used in their regulations (21 CFR et sec, 21 USC et sec) apply to you.
     
    Let me know what you get.  It is time to open the floodgates and let truth sweep us from our ignorance (ignorance is slavery).
     
    Although I agree with Mr. Griffin that we must use constitutional methods of reform to bring freedom and change, I also believe that it can be done in the courts, using the right language, demanding we be tried, for example if ever arrested for a drug charge, in a common law court (most courts are administrative in nature, but you can invoke your common law rights and the court’s common law/judicial power, in particular a state superior court). And your first argument should be, “I am a natural born free human being.”  The second one is, “This agency or court has no jurisdiction over me because I have not nexus with the state or its agencies.”
     
    And don’t worry, they’ll try to say you do, that for example, you created a nexus when you applied for your license. Well, it was done under duress, coersion and fraud, or don’t you get a driver’s license to avoid being arrested for not having the “priviledge” (not paying the fee)  to drive, when deep inside you know you must have a natural right to transport yourself, by any means, to where you want to go. See Crandall v. Nevada, 73 US 35 (1869).